American idea of freedom vs. German intuition

Mycroft · Jan 7, 2013

Paschendale said:
Not all Americans are like that. A whole lot, in fact, aren't like that. To us, community is not limited to the people who live within twenty miles of us. Government's mission is to work for the people, not against it, and it would if it hadn't been hijacked and sold to the highest bidder. Wealth should not entitle a person to more power, and no one's contribution is important enough to warrant unbridled wealth and no one's is insignificant enough that they should be hungry or homeless. No one's money should determine whether they live or die, which expensive private healthcare does. Comprehensive education for every single citizen is necessary for a free society, and full participation in the political process protects personal freedom, not violence.

Freedom is the ability (which naturally includes the right) to determine one's own destiny. This can't be done if one doesn't have the same legal rights as everyone else, and those rights aren't needlessly curtailed, nor if one is denied access to society. Freedom has nothing to do with taxes or regulations about pollution or endangered animals and plants.

Right out of Atlas Shrugged...unfortunately, it's from the side that lost.

MoSurveyor · Jan 7, 2013

Mycroft said:
Right out of Atlas Shrugged...unfortunately, it's from the side that lost.

Wealth creating power over others is something Ayn Rand seemed to be dead set against. The people who controlled the government also had "unbridled wealth", which she also railed against. I honestly don't remember any mention of public education - I'm willing to hear quotes. (Ed: To the "hungry or homeless" portion, even Rearden contributed to charity - though I agree it was not from any sense of guilt or community. Today there would have been no question he would get listed as a contributor, though, regardless of his reported beliefs.)

As for the second paragraph - "Freedom is the ability (which naturally includes the right) to determine one's own destiny." could have easily been written by her - in fact it was almost her mantra.

We must have read two different versions. Mine was printed in the early 60's, read in the 70's, and I've re-read it since then with an aged adult's long perspective. I have no idea what the hell you read - maybe just the Cliff Notes???

Mycroft · Jan 7, 2013

MoSurveyor said:
Wealth creating power over others is something Ayn Rand seemed to be dead set against. The people who controlled the government also had "unbridled wealth", which she also railed against. I honestly don't remember any mention of public education - I'm willing to hear quotes. (Ed: To the "hungry or homeless" portion, even Rearden contributed to charity - though I agree it was not from any sense of guilt or community. Today there would have been no question he would get listed as a contributor, though, regardless of his reported beliefs.)

As for the second paragraph - "Freedom is the ability (which naturally includes the right) to determine one's own destiny." could have easily been written by her - in fact it was almost her mantra.

We must have read two different versions. Mine was printed in the early 60's, read in the 70's, and I've re-read it since then with an aged adult's long perspective. I have no idea what the hell you read - maybe just the Cliff Notes???

" no one's contribution is important enough to warrant unbridled wealth"

"no one's is insignificant enough that they should be hungry or homeless"

"No one's money should determine whether they live or die"

These are all concepts used by the takers to gain public support for their increased control over the makers.

MoSurveyor · Jan 7, 2013

Mycroft said:
" no one's contribution is important enough to warrant unbridled wealth"

Even the takers had unbridled wealth. It isn't the wealth that was at issue - and, really, never has been. It's what you do with it that makes the difference.

Mycroft said:
"no one's is insignificant enough that they should be hungry or homeless""No one's money should determine whether they live or die"

Sorry, you'll have to give me chapter and verse on that one. Pretty sure hungry, homeless, and dying wasn't mentioned as you're trying to use it but I could be wrong.

Mycroft said:
These are all concepts used by the takers to gain public support for their increased control over the makers.

No, those were excuses they used for their own ends. The excuses had nothing to do with the taker's actions. And in case you weren't paying attention - the taker's were corporate execs, not Congress and the Pres. The political "leaders", to the extent they were mentioned, were just puppets to the greedy corps (the takers).

Rearden invested his "unbridled wealth" in more production facilities and put people to work. In Ayn Rands ideal world there would be no unemployment and no welfare because neither would be needed. Everyone would have a good job that wanted one. No reason for people to die in the streets unless that was their choice. Sorry, her world is just a fantasy and nothing will change that. I suggest you read more about game theory.

Mycroft · Jan 7, 2013

MoSurveyor said:
1. Even the takers had unbridled wealth. It isn't the wealth that was at issue - and, really, never has been. It's what you do with it that makes the difference.
2. Sorry, you'll have to give me chapter and verse on that one. Pretty sure hungry, homeless, and dying wasn't mentioned as you're trying to use it but I could be wrong.
3. No, those were excuses they used for their own ends. The excuses had nothing to do with the taker's actions. And in case you weren't paying attention - the taker's were corporate execs, not Congress and the Pres. The political "leaders", to the extent they were mentioned, were just puppets to the greedy corps (the takers).

Rearden invested his "unbridled wealth" in more production facilities and put people to work. In Ayn Rands ideal world there would be no unemployment and no welfare because neither would be needed. Everyone would have a good job that wanted one. No reason for people to die in the streets unless that was their choice. Sorry, her world is just a fantasy and nothing will change that. I suggest you read more about game theory.

1. The taker's attitude toward anyone who had unbridled wealth was that they didn't deserve it. That those without it needed it. Or, at least, that's what they told the people. They convinced the people of this and were allowed to take the power they wanted.

2. The only thing that ensures that anyone should not be hungry or homeless was their own desire and ability to earn what they want. That was a basic tenant of Rand's and was repeated throughout the book.

3. The corporate execs were the tools of the takers. The takers were the government officials and all they wanted was power. Throughout the book and in the end, the political leaders threw their corporate exec useful idiots under the bus to achieve their ends. And their end was control.

You really should go back and re-read the book. You've either misunderstood what it said or you forgot.

You are correct about Rearden...to a point. His purpose wasn't to put people to work. He gave employment to those who served his purposes...those who were able and competent enough to be of benefit to him.

Rand never intimated that there would be no unemployment or that welfare would not be needed. However, she never agreed that the government should take from those with money to give to those without. She never said anyone would have a good job. She said everyone could have the work they were capable of performing.

That's why those statements of yours that I noted are from the losing side in her book.

Republic Now! · Jan 7, 2013

German guy said:
When Americans say "freedom", many apparently mean "freedom from the government"

Well, yes and no. Largely, freedom in its idealized form can be viewed as complete anarchy, though the American ideal of freedom tends to hold a standard which others do not have the freedom to violate your own. So, in some ways, Government protects freedoms, and in others it threatens them.

with strong emphasis on economic freedom -- the way free markets distribute wealth is not questioned, but even considered an ideal, totally just system, because "everybody enjoys the fruits of his work".

Economic freedom is a necessary aspect of freedom. Simply because many in the world ignore it doesn't mean Americans put emphasis on it; it's simply the aspect of freedom most commonly questioned.

There is no such thing as a "common welfare" or "public interests",

Completely false; common welfare is what has us ban things like murder and rape.

no such thing as society (as Margaret Thatcher once said), but "only individuals".

Also false. Society is not a separate entity from the individuals and thus individuals must be given wide consideration. These are, again, basic aspects of freedom. You cannot consider society as a separate entity outside of the individual people you will affect. This is completely counter to freedom.

This goes so far that any government regulation or action is questioned and considered a necessary evil at best.

Correct. Why shouldn't Government actions be questioned? Governments purpose is to act as a "necessary evil," because legitimate anarchy is effectively impossible, thus control must be seceded to someone. It's governments duty to ensure this control is used properly and not abused.

What is the purpose you see Government serving?

"Democracy" has a bad name among many Americans, because democracy allegedly is "tyranny of the majority".

That is also correct. Democracy makes no consideration for the minority by definition. That's kind of the whole point of democracy; the majority gets what it wants.

Democracy is fine in limited scopes and when bound by a sensible constitution.

Some don't even make a difference between democratic or autocratic government and consider both equally bad

Well, I wouldn't say EQUALLY bad, but both have the potential to be bad and both are counter to sound government. You could always have a benevolent dictator, who ensures a just government and treats his people well. I wouldn't say this particular government would be necessarily bad. Quite simply, a sound Government will be small because it is all that is necessary to perform its proper function. A government too large, regardless of it's present well-meaning intentions, is dangerous, because its present intentions are much more temporal than the power given to it.

-- only a tiny government is a good government, no matter which character it has.

Not exactly; see above.

The people, the individuals have the right to defend themselves against government with firearms

Yes. This little tid-bit came around in the glorious revolution. Why so much of the world now magically thinks such a right is no longer important (in Germany no less!) is beyond me. I don't get it.

and topple their government if it gets too big.

Again, yes, an important aspect of a just society. The Government must be consented to by the people.

And many simplify their view: Every advocacy of government intervention is labelled "left wing socialism",

Government intervention democratically pushed for is, by definition, socialist. I don't know why that's such a big deal to admit.

while only free market radicalism is "right freedom".

What's "right freedom?" I also don't know what free market radicalism is. If the government forces you to do something, you're not free in that regard, and this extends to economic issues as well.

Some even call taxes "theft".

Well, it depends. In Europe the monarchies would collect oppressive taxes, which were focused in small centralized regions creating centers of power and wealth. While I don't agree with the characterization of taxes as theft necessarily, I can certainly see the parallel.

Now my experience in Germany is different. For me, and I believe for today's German mainstream, the crucial question is not how big government is, but how democratic and constitutional it is.

And if it isn't, then what? You've already established that armed rebellion is ridiculous.

"Democracy" is a word with an extremely positive connotation in my ear.

Well it was for me too for a long time. We're taught it's a good thing in most parts.

And I don't believe either that a distribution of wealth created by free markets is fair,

Well, it's not equal. Fair is a different matter.

but that big business will enslave the people just as much as big government, if it's not checked

The outlawing of slavery sees to that.

-- private actors are not better than democratic government, but usually even much, much worse, because they don't enjoy democratic legitimation and are basically "little dictatorships within the democratic state".

Private actors don't have government authority. The comparison is ridiculous.

Actors with much money always have more power than actors with few money,

In some ways, just as stronger actors have more authority as well; especially when you restrict firearms.

and this is not okay, because humans are all worth the same and accordingly all should have the same voice in all issues that concern them.

You're falsely equating authority to value. Does the person who worked their whole lives to create a successful business not deserve more authority over that business? Why do you suddenly authority over it simply because it can advantage you? Should I get equal say in how you raise your offspring simply because your child may at some level impact mine?

Actually, I have to ask honestly; what part of freedom are you fond of? Or is freedom to you simply the majority imposing it's will on others?-

Only democracy can make sure this is the case. And the idea that there is no "common good/welfare" or "society" sounds totally absurd to me, because we are not individuals living on abandoned isles -- no, we have a responsibility, because our actions will always affect our fellow citizens.

Yes, and our fellow citizens have innate power over us. The distinction here is that the responsibility is individually realized instead of authoritatively imposed.

I don't believe in a kind of "leave me the **** alone-freedom" either, but I believe basic constitutional values such as inviolability of the person,

I don't get it. You don't believe in being left alone as freedom but you believe in a right to being left alone as freedom?

the right on free speech and gathering,

Well, not all speech and gathering obviously.

the right to choose the representatives in free elections,

Ha! I don't have that right if I'm not in the majority!

the right on a fair trial

Why do you hate democracy so much?

and the right on dignity -- those are the true basic values I believe in.

Good.

Probably this is due to different historical experiences.

Possibly, though the origins of the ideologies are similar.

Here in Germany today, we are still totally obsessed with the Nazis' rise to power

The democratic rise to power.

and our intention to learn from it. And the bad thing about the Nazis was not that they created welfare nets, health care or anything of that kind -- no, the problem was that they destroyed the constitution, trampled on its values, abolished democracy and a free legal system and then abused this power to enslave the entire people and murder a significant portion of it. The problem was that inviolability of the person, freedom of speech, democratic elections and fair trials were no longer guaranteed.

Gee, and you ask why Americans believed in the right to rebel and to keep arms to do so?

The idea that firearms in the population could have prevented Hitler's rise to power sounds totally absurd to me:

Nope; he was freely elected.

If more people had had guns in Weimar, they would have used them to even more effectively destroy the democratic-republican government -- the problem was that way too few people believed in constitutional values and democracy.

Well, they believed in Democracy enough to vote for him. Constitutional values were considered second to practicality.

A majority hated the republic, supporting either right-wing monarchist or Nazi ideas, or communist ideas on the left.

Well, the Wiemar republic failed in a lot of respects.

The German people back then could not be trusted, and the fathers of the 1949 constitution didn't trust their people either -- and I am still not inclined to trust my own people today. Maybe we are freedom-loving democrats as long as the economy is doing well, but if and when there is a crisis, I am not going to bet that we remain this way.

Which is kind of the point of having a smaller government and an armed populace.

What does that mean? In Germany's history, it was ironically not the people that fought for freedom, but it was government that defended freedom from the authoritarian mob: The 1848 revolution for a republican state failed. 1918 it succeeded, but Weimar soon failed because the constitutional-democratic government was not strong enough to defend itself against the mob that hated it.

The Weimar failed because it was ineptly ran.

If the Government somehow paradoxically imposed such a government on the people against their will, how does this mesh with democracy or freedom?

In West-Germany after 1949, a majority of the people still didn't believe in democratic values and freedom for one or two decades, but would have supported any demagogue -- the new republican government supported by a new constitution defended freedom against the people (with strict anti-Nazi hate speech laws -- 5 years in prison for Holocaust denial, for example -- and the legal option to ban anti-constitutional parties and organizations).

Not really free speech then huh?

Also, it often were private actors on the market that enslaved and abused the people over here, not government: Think of the situation of 19th century workers to get an idea. They and their children had to work up to 16 hours per day, without days off, without labor safety regulations, without any right on pensions, and -- worst of all -- no prospect of ever climbing the social ladder. That's why we know private actors can be just as tyrannic, if not more so, than government, and private actors often are the much bigger threat for individual freedom.

This was solved a long time ago when workers realized their own leverage through unions. The problem was ignorance, not systematic failure.

That's why a simple anti-government rhetoric is not common in Germany -- most of us don't fear the state. What we do fear, though, is a state that attempts to violation the constitution and its values, one that abandons democracy in favor of autocracy: Whenever the government issues a law that proposes wiretapping, military expenditures, internet censorship or the like -- you can count on many Germans crying bloody murder, much like Americans do when taxes are raised.

Well, Americans don't really cry bloody murder about taxes. We're not big fans of the large federal taxes. Maybe you're misunderstanding also comes in at the differences between America and Germany. We have multiple levels of Government. Most people don't really oppose local taxes and in fact when local taxes are needed for some project, a lot of times many people support them. We recently voted to raise sales tax for road construction projects in my district even though Obama only got about 30% of the vote here. Many people have a deeper problem with our tax system not because they think taxes are fundamentally wrong, but because when you pay a third of your wealth to fund some government subsidization program in Maryland and you live in Oregon, neither you nor your community benefits but some other community that you've never even met. In this way, it feels a lot like paying taxes to the king.

Republic Now! · Jan 7, 2013

We're so sensitive on these issues that not few believed the Fourth Reich is about to start, when Bush introduced the Patriot Act in America, his policy of extralegal renditions and anti-terror war -- denying mere suspects the right on fair trials, locking them away for years, although many of them are probably innocent -- WTF?! That's Nazi stuff!!!

The patriot act was a huge mistake, and only got support from emotion. This is why so many oppose it in America.

Also, if America starts slashing military spending, I'd expect your own military spending to rise.

On the other side, we don't do much more than grumbling a little when taxes are raised, even when they reach more than 50% of our income. Annoying? Sure ... but hey, it's for a good cause,

If I want to put my money to a good cause, I'll donate it. What's more; I'll donate it in a way that I know will have a positive effect. Charity is also important to a free society and a large part of American culture. I couldn't count the number of hours I and others I know have volunteered at local charities to provide food to the poor.

and the day we are unlucky, we'll profit from that money ourselves, thanks to the social nets.

And I will (and have) from charity.

Taxes are stealing? Ah shut the **** up, you egoistic asshole. There is not just you in this country, understood?

Again, depends.

Also, I often feel offended when certain Americans are way too quick when labeling certain policies "socialism" or "tyranny": WE know what real socialism is. We had that in East Germany from 1949 to 1990: No right on privacy, no right on democratic participation, no freedom of speech or religion, a police force that was above the law and a legal system in the pockets of big government, ****ty material situation.

All of those are example of authoritarian governments. The defining quality of socialism is the government allocation of resources; Marx described this as democratic. I'd imagine that in modern day we don't consider that a requirement.

Maybe you just like socialism.

So don't tell me that a thing that actually helps people to gain more freedom -- a public health care system, i.e. -- anyhow resembles that kind of real socialism!

A public health care system is not a freedom issue, or at best, is authoritative because it requires active participation.

And on the other side, you look away when your government can kidnap suspects from the street and make them disappear, without any court ever being able to rule about them, is "necessary in the war on terror"... now maybe "fascism" is not a appropriate label for such kind of blatantly anti-constitutional policy, just as bad as the label "socialism" for public welfare, but it's the first thing that comes to my mind.

Who's looking the other way? There's a huge opposition to the recent expansion of Government authority in America, but too many people prefer a large and protective Government. Democracy in action and all that.

What do you think? Do you understand where I am coming from?

Only barely.

RGacky3 · Jan 7, 2013

ttwtt78640 said:
I am not familiar with the social safety nets in Germany, yet in the US they are growing, in expense, at an alarming pace. I can find no such data on the internet about German social safety net systems. Can you help explain them to we Americans?

Government assistance expands - Feb. 7, 2012

The reason they are growing is because of more and more poor people, not because the benefits for individual poor people are growing.

Germany has a pretty solid welfare state system, much more so than the US.

MoSurveyor · Jan 7, 2013

Mycroft said:
1. The taker's attitude toward anyone who had unbridled wealth was that they didn't deserve it. That those without it needed it. Or, at least, that's what they told the people. They convinced the people of this and were allowed to take the power they wanted.

Right - they used it as an excuse and never followed up on it other than demanding companies hire workers that wouldn't work. Even those evil unions don't let that happen.

Mycroft said:
2. The only thing that ensures that anyone should not be hungry or homeless was their own desire and ability to earn what they want. That was a basic tenant of Rand's and was repeated throughout the book.

In her fantasy world of makers the ability and opportunity is always there. That's not reality. In reality people, both rich and poor, will lie, cheat, and steal. It's easy to forgive the poor, not so easy to forgive short-term corporate greed that puts people out of work.

Mycroft said:
3. The corporate execs were the tools of the takers. The takers were the government officials and all they wanted was power. Throughout the book and in the end, the political leaders threw their corporate exec useful idiots under the bus to achieve their ends. And their end was control.

Orren Boyle was not a government official - though his lacky, Mouch, was later put into a powerful government position to facilitate the takeover. Orren Boyle was the owner of Associated Steel and other companies. He "headed an enormous concern which had swallowed many smaller companies" and as far as I could tell was the leader of the taker camp.

Mycroft said:
You are correct about Rearden...to a point. His purpose wasn't to put people to work. He gave employment to those who served his purposes...those who were able and competent enough to be of benefit to him.

Rand never intimated that there would be no unemployment or that welfare would not be needed. However, she never agreed that the government should take from those with money to give to those without. She never said anyone would have a good job. She said everyone could have the work they were capable of performing.

Of course his purpose wasn't to put people to work, except as it helped him achieve his goals, it was to make money through honest work and investment. ((Rearden didn't play around with the stock market, trading shares every other day. He did what the richest men in the world do today, make solid long-term investments. Too bad so many companies today have moved away from that.)) But if you take the maker's fantasy world out far enough that's where you end up: A utopia where jobs are available to anyone who wants to work. If you look back to those bad old days of Clinton you'll find an unemployment rate below 4%, where businesses were forced to exceed minimum wage just to get burger flippers. What (lazy-ass) welfare there was didn't last long because jobs were available - and not because of some fake government mandate. So, yes, it can happen even in the real world but short-term corporate greed doesn't usually allow it.

Mycroft · Jan 7, 2013

MoSurveyor said:
Right - they used it as an excuse and never followed up on it other than demanding companies hire workers that wouldn't work. Even those evil unions don't let that happen.

Yes. They did that...and more.

In her fantasy world of makers the ability and opportunity is always there. That's not reality. In reality people, both rich and poor, will lie, cheat, and steal. It's easy to forgive the poor, not so easy to forgive short-term corporate greed that puts people out of work.

Opportunity IS always there. And yes, if people didn't find it so easy to get the government to help and cover for them, the liars, the cheaters and the stealers would fail very quickly.

Orren Boyle was not a government official - though his lacky, Mouch, was later put into a powerful government position to facilitate the takeover. Orren Boyle was the owner of Associated Steel and other companies. He "headed an enormous concern which had swallowed many smaller companies" and as far as I could tell was the leader of the taker camp.

Re-read the book. Thompson, was the leader. Boyle and Mouch followed his orders. Oh, and Mouch was never Boyle's lackey.

Of course his purpose wasn't to put people to work, except as it helped him achieve his goals, it was to make money through honest work and investment. ((Rearden didn't play around with the stock market, trading shares every other day. He did what the richest men in the world do today, make solid long-term investments. Too bad so many companies today have moved away from that.)) But if you take the maker's fantasy world out far enough that's where you end up: A utopia where jobs are available to anyone who wants to work. If you look back to those bad old days of Clinton you'll find an unemployment rate below 4%, where businesses were forced to exceed minimum wage just to get burger flippers. What (lazy-ass) welfare there was didn't last long because jobs were available - and not because of some fake government mandate. So, yes, it can happen even in the real world but short-term corporate greed doesn't usually allow it.

Rand's vision wasn't really a utopia...especially back in the 50's...when she wrote the book. Here's a clue: Clinton wasn't the "bad old days". Rand saw the writing begin to be written on the wall and she pointed it out. We just now have a whole lot more of that writing on the wall...and it's getting worse.

Believe me...and Rand...government is not the answer...and corporations and employers are not the bad guys.

ttwtt78640 · Jan 7, 2013

RGacky3 said:
The reason they are growing is because of more and more poor people, not because the benefits for individual poor people are growing.

Germany has a pretty solid welfare state system, much more so than the US.

While Germany may have a "solid welfare system" it certainly has higher taxes as well, applied to ALL, not skewed to only the rich, they do not borrow from future generations or pretend it to be otherwise. The average annual per person "help" cost in the US is rising. The number of US poor has remained fairly constant at 15% of the US population. There are now over 70 different US federal (some with state administration/matching funds) "income based" social programs, yet some like to point to only TANF as "Welfare".

Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty | The Weekly Standard

Examining the Means-tested Welfare State

A Welfare Household: $61,320 Per Year Tax Free

RGacky3 · Jan 7, 2013

ttwtt78640 said:
While Germany may have a "solid welfare system" it certainly has higher taxes as well, applied to ALL, not skewed to only the rich, they do not borrow from future generations or pretend it to be otherwise. The average annual per person "help" cost in the US is rising. The number of US poor has remained fairly constant at 15% of the US population. There are now over 70 different US federal (some with state administration/matching funds) "income based" social programs, yet some like to point to only TANF as "Welfare".

Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty | The Weekly Standard

Examining the Means-tested Welfare State

A Welfare Household: $61,320 Per Year Tax Free

A: mainly on the rich.
B: Germany has strong Unions and Co-Determination, making the working class very strong.
C: Ther "per person cost" would be rising due to rising cost of living, and the fact that some people would need less help or more, and more people need more.
D: Unemployment has gone up

What makes German have a solid system, is not tax and welfare, its strong labor, and a strong working class.

German guy · Jan 7, 2013

Goshin said:
(...)
Yes, we're different. We're not much like Europeans. We have very different values and norms.

Where I'm going with this is that the US is very heterogenous in its political and economic views, or whatever term is the opposite of "monolithic". However yes there are some common themes... distrust of government and politicians is built into our founding and our Constitution, as is the value of individual rights and individual efforts within a free market system. Many people view anything that involves government expansion as a precursor and slippery slope towards socialism, yes.

However we don't all view things the same even within this context. I have, over the past decade, come to understand that the worst excesses of a free market need to be curbed, and that employers (esp large corps) can be as oppressive as any tyrannical government if not curbed.

We do tend to be more individualistic and less group-oriented than probably any other people on Earth... it is, as I said, built into the bones of our nation.

Kudos for broaching the topic... it is important to understand that different peoples define these things very differently.

Thank you for your reply. And yeah, my posting probably is longer than necessary.

Certainly you have much to be proud of in America, no question about it. But of course I am more familiar with my German culture, and I like it here ... there is no place like home, right?

Maybe I generalized too much when I said "most Americans" or "many Americans" think this way or the other... I'm aware of the heterogeneity of American views (else there would be not much use for a debate forum like this one, I guess

). But I thought pointing it a little was required for the comparison I intended to make. Sorry if I went too far.

Likewise, views in Germany are not monolithic either. We have libertarians too, of course, who maybe even are "American wolves in German sheep clothing".

At any rate, I am glad we can debate and exchange our views here, because that helps us understanding each other better. Or it just helps me understanding things better, no idea.

German guy · Jan 7, 2013

ttwtt78640 said:
I am not familiar with the social safety nets in Germany, yet in the US they are growing, in expense, at an alarming pace. I can find no such data on the internet about German social safety net systems. Can you help explain them to we Americans?

Government assistance expands - Feb. 7, 2012

I'll try to do my best, but I'm no expert ... at any rate, there is a compulsory health insurance. It's semi-private, semi-public: The moment you take a job, you are required to either get a private health insurance (which can be rather expensive and encompassing), or you get a public insurance (much cheaper, only covering the basics) by default.

You are also legally required to pay for the public pension system when you are an employee (half of it comes from your income, the other half from your employer), and the amount of money you get once you have reached the age of 67 depends on how long you have been paying for the pension system while still in work. If you retire before the age of 67, some of the money is cut. Self-employed people are not required to pay into the pension system. Of course you are free to additionally pay for private pensions, as the public pensions are not much.

When you lose your job, you get unemployment support for one year IIRC, but you have to document that you are looking for a new job -- if you don't, the money you receive is cut. After one year, you get a social support that is called "Hartz 4", a minimum support, just like people who are not capable of working. Again, if you can work but refuse to, the money is cut. When you receive "Hartz 4", the government pays public health insurance for you.

Most schools and universities in Germany are public, so except for minor fees, you don't have to pay for attending them. If a student is accepted at a university, but his or her parents are not wealthy enough to support him/her, the student can apply for "Bafög", a public study credit at very good conditions that has to be paid back once you have finished university and are in work.

There are various other kinds public support, for handicapped people, veterans, parents of children, and so on. Notable is, for example, the "children money", a public support for parents of children.

So yeah, I guess we're a socialist hellhole.

German guy · Jan 7, 2013

samsmart said:
A German bringing this up reminds me of a story I heard in regards to the American Revolution.

Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben was a Prussian military officer who was given a commission in the Continental Army as a Major General by George Washington. During the winter of 1777-78, Baron von Steuben was tasked with training the soldiers of the Continental Army at Valley Forge.

He said that he would always get quite exasperated at American soldiers. With Prussians soldiers, he would tell one what to do and he would do it.

With American soldiers, though, he would tell a soldier what to do, that soldier would demand to know why it needed to be done, von Steuben would have to explain it, and only then the soldier would do it.

He found that quite irritating, and, for some reason, this thread reminded me of that story.

Yes, we Germans have the image of being rather obedient and receptive of authority, and probably for a good reason. Maybe we still are, although I don't have this impression ... but then, I might be too close to the matter to see it.

Reminds me of that 1961 American Billy Wilder comedy "One, Two, Three", where an American Coca Cola producer tries to build up a factory in West-Germany. Whenever he enters the office, all of his German employees get up and salute. He tells his assistant: "I told these Germans so often they don't have to do that. They have democracy now, they can do what they want." The assistant replies: "Yes, and that's the problem. I told them they can do what they want, and they want to salute, so they do it."

I guess that describes the situation in West-Germany in the 50s and early 60s well.

German guy · Jan 7, 2013

lizzie said:
I understand where you are coming from, but many of the citizens in Germany (and Europe in general) don't come from the same type of "stock" that many Americans do. I know it sounds a little petty, but we generally come from revolutionary-types in this country. Many of our ancestors were not happy with the status quo of European life, and gave up everything they had to come here for a new opportunity and a new life. We come from the type of people who pride themselves on self-sufficiency and daring-ness. Even one of my German ancestors was a stow-away on a ship from Germany. She hid out on the ship, to get away from her life. This is the type we come from, and although environment plays a part in a person's personna and personality, those genetic tendencies are also passed on. I know it's difficult to understand the American mindset, but we're cut from different cloth, as a general rule. That is the very reason for our successes and our historical willingness to go fight in wars, when we have nothing to gain. We've done it time and again. Good, bad, or indifferent. It's what we are. We are, for the most part, fighters and dare-takers.

That's certainly true, but I wonder if we aren't that different after all.

Maybe we just need different reasons and excuses to blindly embrace authority. For example, I found it frightening how easily so many Americans accepted Bush's actions after 9/11 -- it seemed like the entire country gathered behind the flag, no longer questioned anything the government said and did (well, some did, but they were discarded as "hating America" and their patriotism questioned), and the media totally failed to question the government's motivations to go into Iraq (like that obvious lie about an "imminent threat by WMD"). Criticism against Patriot Act and other such measures never became mainstream, as far as I can tell, and they persist up to today -- Obama even expanded them. And it seems to me that in general, Americans are much more willing to embrace government, as long as it's about war and military matters than Germans are today.

On the other side, we Germans are way too obedient when it comes to social matters and wealth redistribution. We don't hate government in general, but we hate a government that goes to war or meddles with the courts. So maybe we just need different kinds of buttons to trigger our "collectivism gene"?

German guy · Jan 7, 2013

Ray410 said:
What would be the attitude of the Germans toward their government if one of their parties toxified their culture to the extent that they blindly elected a Barack Obama, who immediately set about destroying the German culture and people, destroying the German way of life in favor of a worship of third world rage, envy and hatred with the eventual dictatorship and subservience to follow?

A Barack Obama who would travel to the Southern Border and around the world, ridiculing his own country and countrymen to foreigners.

Think that just might turn a German into an American?

No, I don't think so ... I believe, and I think many Germans do, that too much hatred against people who are your political opponents, but not your enemies, and who play by the same constitutional rules as "your side" does, is a bad thing, because it destabilizes the democratic culture and poisons the political climate, with the result that extremist factions or anti-constitutional populists will flourish. So we like respect for the political opponent and reserve the bile for anti-constitutional extremists.

MoSurveyor · Jan 7, 2013

Mycroft said:
Rand's vision wasn't really a utopia...especially back in the 50's...when she wrote the book.

Yes it was - just take a good read of the description of the Valley.

Mycroft said:
Here's a clue: Clinton wasn't the "bad old days". Rand saw the writing begin to be written on the wall and she pointed it out. We just now have a whole lot more of that writing on the wall...and it's getting worse.

I used that phrase sarcastically - sorry I threw you off.

Mycroft said:
Believe me...and Rand...government is not the answer...and corporations and employers are not the bad guys.

Thompson was merely the Head of State but it was corporate money that pulled his strings. Boyle was replaced by (Jim) Taggart towards the end - a fitting outcome considering the taker's cut-throat ways.

I can see we're going to have to agree to disagree on the message from Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand. Maybe I'm just not making myself clear. :shrug:
BTW - I actually liked The Fountainhead better.

I don't consider corporations inherently good or bad. They can be either, just like the people that run them. The problems arise when corporations go for short-term profit over long-term gains. Rearden Steel was a good company. He plowed his money back into the company in the form of R&D, expanding the mill, and buying other companies related to his business. (He also wasn't afraid to get his hands - literally - dirty, which I always admire.) All of those things kept the company growing and running, which also supplied steady jobs to his employees and a solid future for everyone. Whether that was his goal or not it's always the side-effect (if you want to call it that) of a well-run company.

Things also degenerate when corporate influence starts seeping too far into government. While it's very advisable to seek the opinions of businessmen, it's sheer folly for government to blindly follow their lead. The whole SOPA episode is evidence of that recklessness.

MoSurveyor · Jan 7, 2013

German guy said:
No, I don't think so ... I believe, and I think many Germans do, that too much hatred against people who are your political opponents, but not your enemies, and who play by the same constitutional rules as "your side" does, is a bad thing, because it destabilizes the democratic culture and poisons the political climate, with the result that extremist factions or anti-constitutional populists will flourish. So we like respect for the political opponent and reserve the bile for anti-constitutional extremists.

That's the way it was in America, too, until the last decade or so.

samsmart · Jan 7, 2013

German guy said:
Yes, we Germans have the image of being rather obedient and receptive of authority, and probably for a good reason. Maybe we still are, although I don't have this impression ... but then, I might be too close to the matter to see it.

Reminds me of that 1961 American Billy Wilder comedy "One, Two, Three", where an American Coca Cola producer tries to build up a factory in West-Germany. Whenever he enters the office, all of his German employees get up and salute. He tells his assistant: "I told these Germans so often they don't have to do that. They have democracy now, they can do what they want." The assistant replies: "Yes, and that's the problem. I told them they can do what they want, and they want to salute, so they do it."

I guess that describes the situation in West-Germany in the 50s and early 60s well.

Well, please note I'm not really bragging here, although many Americans are.

There are, after all, some downsides.

The colonies tried to keep up this more individualistic mindset in the Articles of Confederation. Which didn't last. The Condtitution was written in order to centralize more authority so Americans to do more as a group.

Heck, it wasn't even until after the Civil War until most referred to themselves as "American" rather than to their state.

This also corresponds to the current gridlock going on in the federal government. Opposition parties don't just object to the other party's policies - rather, they go right after each and every one of the other party's policies with every tool at their disposal.

We also have this weird thing where we are against referendums. Americans are against politicians making legislation for them, which could lead to tyranny, but the only thing many Americans are more afraid of than that is allowing their fellow people to pass legislation instead.

Or, even though our country revolted against elites, there are those who want to allow state legislatures to elect Senators rather than let the people do it, which is elitism.

And at least Europe doesn't mythologize their constitution, and so are willing to change it when needed.

I'm pretty sure that Germany doesn't talk about how Konrad Adenauer was inspired to be Chancellor by Jesus Christ to make West Germany a shining city on the hill, with East Germany the valley of the shadow of death to be opposed.

lizzie · Jan 7, 2013

German guy said:
That's certainly true, but I wonder if we aren't that different after all.

Maybe we just need different reasons and excuses to blindly embrace authority. For example, I found it frightening how easily so many Americans accepted Bush's actions after 9/11 -- it seemed like the entire country gathered behind the flag, no longer questioned anything the government said and did (well, some did, but they were discarded as "hating America" and their patriotism questioned), and the media totally failed to question the government's motivations to go into Iraq (like that obvious lie about an "imminent threat by WMD"). Criticism against Patriot Act and other such measures never became mainstream, as far as I can tell, and they persist up to today --

I think you will find that there are two groups who reacted pretty negatively in that case. Libertarian-types, who understood it for what it was, which was a government power-grab , and crossed constitutional lines, and Democrat-types (which we consider liberal over here) who hated the politics of it. I am the former. There are a good number of democrats who you will not see reacting negatively to Obama strengthening it, because of political allegiances. In other words, if their guy does it, it's okay.

I am very non-collectivist. Imo, the strength lies in the strength of the individuals comprising a group. If there are weak links, the chain itself is weak.

Henrin · Jan 7, 2013

Liberty is the concept that you own your life. That you can use your time, energy and talents to go after whatever it is that you want and often times this leads to going after property. Like property no one can take way your life and stop you from having your liberty to do with it whatever it is that you please. Liberty is the idea that we can do whatever it is that we want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of another.

German guy said:
There is no such thing as a "common welfare" or "public interests", no such thing as society (as Margaret Thatcher once said), but "only individuals".

There is a vast difference between the people that make up a society and the government that rules over it and there should be an understanding the two need to be treated differently from the start. Regardless, there is no reason to expect that people have a responsibility to assist others or for that matter care for others. If others wish people to care for them they must give them a reason to do so or otherwise there is no reason to expect they will. If the interests of the individual are respected than the interests of the group will surely follow as that is simply a function of the market.

And the idea that there is no "common good/welfare" or "society" sounds totally absurd to me, because we are not individuals living on abandoned isles -- no, we have a responsibility, because our actions will always affect our fellow citizens.

No one really believes we are islands, but we are individuals first. What we desire for ourselves comes first and what others desire from us comes second. Government taking from me to give to another is not treating me like an individual nor is it respecting my wishes and my desires. It is instead putting governments desires into my everyday affairs for others benefit. If I desire to assist people I will, but if I don't I have the right to say I will not and that desire should be respected and understood for what it is. I shouldn't be told I'm bad a person because I decide to care for myself and I should not be ordered to act differently or have my property taken from me towards those ends.

This goes so far that any government regulation or action is questioned and considered a necessary evil at best.

The government is a necessary evil by itself. Some of us only permit the existence of government for the simple fact that anarchy is far worse. Government however is an idea that proven itself to be a power hungry without any sort of real way to control it. If we must permit the government existence it must be controlled just where the rights that we were unable to protect in anarchy are protected.

"Democracy" has a bad name among many Americans, because democracy allegedly is "tyranny of the majority".

When you have population centers like New York dictating to the rest of the country it can be described as nothing else.

Some don't even make a difference between democratic or autocratic government and consider both equally bad -- only a tiny government is a good government, no matter which character it has.

If the government is failing to protect the rights and liberty of all people than clearly the governments legitimacy comes into question.

The people, the individuals have the right to defend themselves against government with firearms and topple their government if it gets too big.

Government has proven itself untrustworthy throughout history and since it serves us it is only logical we have the right to destroy it. No one expects they will agree to end their rule and so naturally we will have to fight for our independence from them. Without a way to fight back we are left with only submission or hoping that others come to our defense. I don't consider being at the whim of others a strong standing for a defense and it's not even remotely an offense, sorry.

Some even call taxes "theft".

Taxes are theft. Taxes are the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

Henrin · Jan 7, 2013

German guy said:
So maybe we just need different kinds of buttons to trigger our "collectivism gene"?

Collectivism is in conflict with human ambition and because of this collectivist societies suffer from higher depression rates.

lizzie · Jan 7, 2013

Henrin said:
Collectivism is in conflict with human ambition and because of this collectivist societies suffer from higher depression rates.

Interesting. I really hadn't thought of that angle, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.

Tigger · Jan 7, 2013

German guy said:
When Americans say "freedom", many apparently mean "freedom from the government" with strong emphasis on economic freedom -- the way free markets distribute wealth is not questioned, but even considered an ideal, totally just system, because "everybody enjoys the fruits of his work". There is no such thing as a "common welfare" or "public interests", no such thing as society (as Margaret Thatcher once said), but "only individuals". This goes so far that any government regulation or action is questioned and considered a necessary evil at best. "Democracy" has a bad name among many Americans, because democracy allegedly is "tyranny of the majority". Some don't even make a difference between democratic or autocratic government and consider both equally bad -- only a tiny government is a good government, no matter which character it has. The people, the individuals have the right to defend themselves against government with firearms and topple their government if it gets too big. And many simplify their view: Every advocacy of government intervention is labelled "left wing socialism", while only free market radicalism is "right freedom". Some even call taxes "theft".

I would suggest that for the most part you are correct. Obviously there are people here in the United States who believe much more like you do than the average American does, but for the most part the American people are much more Individualistic rather than Societal in nature. This comes largely from the groups of people that founded and grew this nation. In many cases they were people fleeing from Government, Society, the "Common Good" or other things like that in Europe and other places. America was formed and built by Individuals, not a single society or culture. To that end, we value Individualism considerably more than the average European (in my experience).

American idea of freedom vs. German intuition

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.

MoSurveyor

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.

MoSurveyor

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.

Republic Now!

Republic Now!

RGacky3

MoSurveyor

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

RGacky3

German guy

German guy

German guy

German guy

German guy

MoSurveyor

MoSurveyor

samsmart

lizzie

Henrin

Henrin

lizzie

Tigger